Wednesday, March 21, 2012
Liberty Resources -- Riverstone Holdings -- Carlyle Group
Some time ago I was intrigued by Liberty Resources. Go to the link and read the first comment.
Hofmeister on Bloomberg
Link here.
1. No proof that Saudi can increase production quickly. Saudi has not produced to stated potential. Brent has been at $125 for quite some time; why is Saudi saying they are acting now.
2. No major oil company actually increased production year-over-year in 2011.
3. China with increasing oil demands.
Hofmeister: "I'm not saying Saudi doesn't have the ability to increase production quickly; I'm just saying I don't believe they can."
My sentiments exactly.
1. No proof that Saudi can increase production quickly. Saudi has not produced to stated potential. Brent has been at $125 for quite some time; why is Saudi saying they are acting now.
2. No major oil company actually increased production year-over-year in 2011.
3. China with increasing oil demands.
Hofmeister: "I'm not saying Saudi doesn't have the ability to increase production quickly; I'm just saying I don't believe they can."
My sentiments exactly.
I Blew It -- My Bias Got The Better Of Me -- Readers Correct; I'm Wrong -- The Bakken, North Dakota, USA
This morning I posted the story regarding the new CARBO proppant distribution center slated to be built near Dickinson.
I opined that this was not the best place for such a distribution center.
I was wrong.
Some random thoughts explaining why I was wrong. I'm too far behind in blogging to put the data points in a coherent narrative.
This morning I also posted a rambling piece on state and county officials behind the proverbial "8 ball" in planning for infrastructure needs for the Bakken boom once the USGS study came out, and again when Harold Hamm suggested much higher potential production. And that's what made me realize that my post about the CARBO proppant distribution center was wrong -- and the fact that several readers pointed out the error(s) of my ways.
Back in 2008 or 2010, if state and county leaders had had a crystal ball, one of their options would have been to advise spreading the oil service companies around the state rather than let Williston grow like it did. Williston took on too much; Dickinson was too conservative; Watford City not enough infrastructure in place; Minot underutilized (no one could have predicted the flood). I suppose, in hindsight that even Mandan/Bismarck could have been better utilized supporting the Bakken, but that might be a stretch.
So, a "tip of the hat" to the CARBO folks for looking at Dickinson and not the Williston area.
I opined that this was not the best place for such a distribution center.
I was wrong.
Some random thoughts explaining why I was wrong. I'm too far behind in blogging to put the data points in a coherent narrative.
- rail is all important; both Williston and Dickinson have rail; Watford City area does not
- price of land around Williston has priced itself out of the market
- Williston is way too overbuilt; time for new operations to move elsewhere
- once proppants brought to North Dakota, distance not that big a deal (+/-; debatable)
This morning I also posted a rambling piece on state and county officials behind the proverbial "8 ball" in planning for infrastructure needs for the Bakken boom once the USGS study came out, and again when Harold Hamm suggested much higher potential production. And that's what made me realize that my post about the CARBO proppant distribution center was wrong -- and the fact that several readers pointed out the error(s) of my ways.
Back in 2008 or 2010, if state and county leaders had had a crystal ball, one of their options would have been to advise spreading the oil service companies around the state rather than let Williston grow like it did. Williston took on too much; Dickinson was too conservative; Watford City not enough infrastructure in place; Minot underutilized (no one could have predicted the flood). I suppose, in hindsight that even Mandan/Bismarck could have been better utilized supporting the Bakken, but that might be a stretch.
So, a "tip of the hat" to the CARBO folks for looking at Dickinson and not the Williston area.
US Supreme Court Backs Landowners; Limits Power of EPA
Unanimous decision
Link here.
The Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday that landowners can sue to challenge a federal government compliance order under the clean water law, a decision that sides with corporate groups and puts new limits on a key Environmental Protection Agency power.
The justices unanimously rejected the government's position that individuals or companies must first fail to comply with an EPA order and face potentially costly enforcement action before a court can review the case.
The opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia was a victory for an Idaho couple who challenged a 2007 EPA order that required them to restore a wetland they had filled with dirt and rock as they began to build a new vacation home near Priest Lake. They were also told to stop construction on the home.
The couple, Chantell and Michael Sackett, denied their property had ever contained a wetland and complained they were being forced to comply with an order without a court hearing.I was out and about all day so I am way behind with updates.
I will get back to this one if I have time.
Seven (7) New Permits -- The Williston Basin, North Dakota, USA
Daily activity report, March 21, 2012 --
Operators: Triangle USA Petroleum (4), BEXP (2), OXY USA
Fields: Thompson Lake, Todd, Cow Creek, Antelope Creek
Two (2) wells released from "tight hole" status, including one I was particularly interested in:
Operators: Triangle USA Petroleum (4), BEXP (2), OXY USA
Fields: Thompson Lake, Todd, Cow Creek, Antelope Creek
Two (2) wells released from "tight hole" status, including one I was particularly interested in:
- 21163, 27, Kaiser-Francis, Spyglass 17-1, Duperow, Divide County (not a Bakken),
- 19724, 976, MRO, Joyce Repp 21-17H, Dunn County, Bakken
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)